Building Regulations for Bathrooms

[JohnW2]

It's just a report. The inspector has noted that there is no bonding visible. Unless it was specified in the agreement he would not test for 'extraneousness' and other measurements.

Yes, I understand and agree with all that. As you say, the report says what it says, and the fact that bonding was not visible does necessarily mean that it does not exist.

I obviously misunderstood your intent. Your statement "Testing is not normally part of an "Electrical Installation Condition Report"..." appeared to be a general one, in which case it would not make much sense (nor much sense of the 'Schedule of test results' which is meant to be part of an EICR!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

On this report does it state at there is no visual connection of the equipotential bonding to services, does it also state whether the connection although not visually found was been otherwise verified?
Do the circuits entering the bathroom have any additional RCD protection?
Is the pipework in the bathroom of a metallic fabric?
What type of fabric of pipework are the services supplying the property made of, on the supply side pre-meter.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Although the OP does say that the report 'seems to be very detailed', it was commissioned by an estate agent which leads me to think, possibly wrongly, that it won't be a complete and thorough EICR and no investigation will have been undertaken.

Also, the property is a flat built in 2007 therefore I would assume (?) that it is done correctly and will have RCDs.

Not visible could mean I haven't found or looked for it.

The estate agent can now blame the inspector and the inspector can blame the landlord. Backs covered.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I can't shake the belief that an electrician would not use the terms "cross bonding" and "water bond".

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not a proper one, but there are now what have been termed "Drive-by Landlord Electrical Safety Checks" for £40 which a proper electrician would not do.

 

[JohnW2]

On this report does it state at there is no visual connection of the equipotential bonding to services, does it also state whether the connection although not visually found was been otherwise verified?

I'm not quite sure how one could "otherwise verify" the adequacy of main bonding that was not visually detected. It's quite possible that measurements would show a very low impedance between an incoming service pipe and MET in the absence of any explicit MPB conductor (or in the absence of a MPB conductor of adequate CSA).

Also, as EFLI has pointed out, main bonding of the water service might well not be required (a flat built in 2007 is pretty likely to have a plastic incoming water supply), in which case the absence of 'main equipotential bonding' would obviously be irrelevant, and certainly should not be 'coded'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Not visible could mean I haven't found or looked for it.

It could - but, whilst one can observe that there is no visible main bonding of the water supply, one surely should not code it as a C2 ("potentially dangerous, and should be acted upon as a matter of urgency") unless one has determined that there actually is a problem? If that has not been determined, then is not an F1 code ("Further investigation required") what (if anything) would be appropriate?

As you have said, it is very possible that main bonding of the water supply is not required (particularly for a flat built in ~2007) - and, if that were the case, to code the absence of visible bonding as C2 would surely be ridiculous?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It might not seem ridiculous to someone who didn't know what they were doing.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That may be, but my point is that it is likely to have been a buck-passing exercise and the buck is now in the hands of the landlord.

I think if there should be main bonding but isn't that would be C2 so from the point of view of someone who is less than enthusiastic, C2 would be more of a back-coverer than FI.
Of course, if merely unknowledgeable it is meaningless.


Perhaps the OP could post the report - with names redacted.

 

[JohnW2]

I think if there should be main bonding but isn't that would be C2 ...

I imagine that we would all agree with that.

... so from the point of view of someone who is less than enthusiastic, C2 would be more of a back-coverer than FI.

Obviously true - but, given the implications of a C2 for the landlord/occupier/whoever, I don't think it is acceptable to exercise such 'back-covering' if it means awarding a C2 on the basis that something might possibly deserve it.

I'm sure you would not be too impressed if an MOT inspector said that he had temporarily mislaid his tread gauge (so could not 'test' properly), so (in order to protect himself from the risk of passing the vehicle when he shouldn't) had failed your vehicle on the grounds that the tyres might have inadequate treads!

Perhaps the OP could post the report - with names redacted.

That would certainly be helpful.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I'm not quite sure how one could "otherwise verify" the adequacy of main bonding that was not visually detected. It's quite possible that measurements would show a very low impedance between an incoming service pipe and MET in the absence of any explicit MPB conductor (or in the absence of a MPB conductor of adequate CSA).

Long lead, calibrated continuity meter, end of bonding at board with all other bonding/earth conductors disconnected, test at service pipes. Looking for closed circuit, hoping for less than 0.05 ohms. The CSA of bonding at board or MET would hopefully assist in attaining the CSA.
Not that tricky to verify!

 

[JohnW2]

Long lead, calibrated continuity meter, end of bonding at board with all other bonding/earth conductors disconnected, test at service pipes. Looking for closed circuit, hoping for less than 0.05 ohms. The CSA of bonding at board or MET would hopefully assist in attaining the CSA. Not that tricky to verify!

Not at all tricky if, as you imply, one can identify the end of a bonding conductor (and disconnect it from everything else) - but if one could, then it would not really be the "bonding not visible' situation we're talking about.

In any event, if one cannot find/see the connection of the bonding conductor to the service pipe, I don't see how one could "verify" that the bonding were regs-compliant (even if 'electrically satisfactory'). If, say, an (assumed) bonding conductor leaves the MET and rapidly disappears into a wall or under the floor, and one measures a very low resistance between that conductor and the service pipe, it's quite possible that the conductor was connected to pipework close to the MET, 'miles' from where the service pipe enters the building - so, as I said, 'electrically satisfactory' but (in most people's eyes) non-compliant with regs.

Would you be happy to say that main bonding was satisfactory (and compliant) if you had no idea where the bonding conductor was attached to pipework? This is really one of those situations in which 'electrical common sense' and 'compliance with regulations' are not necessarily the same thing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

If I tested between MET end to incoming pipework at measured a suitably low reading , I would be happy to verify a connection, even though there is no visible connection. But would remark upon my findings on the report.

 

[JohnW2]

If I tested between MET end to incoming pipework at measured a suitably low reading , I would be happy to verify a connection, even though there is no visible connection. But would remark upon my findings on the report.

Fair enough - I take that to mean taht vyou would not 'code' it? As I said, it would be easy enough to verify that the connection was 'electrically satisfactory', but very distant from the point of entry of the service), but not to verify that it was compliant.

In fact, if one could gain access to the point of entry to undertake your test, yet there was no connection of a bonding conductor in sight in that vicinity, then one will have gone a fair way to determining that the bonding was not compliant.

I suppose the extent to which this 'matters' depends to some extent on how you would code things. If the bonding conductor were fully visible, and was connected to the water service pipe just a metre or so from the MET (but many metres from where the service entered the property) and, as would probably be the case (even a 15mm Cu pipe, with 1mm walls, has a CSA of around 45mm²), you measured a very low resistance from MET to the point of entry of the service, would you give that a C2, or what?

Kind Regards, John

_

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would not be surprised if all the services (electric and water) enter the flat in the same place (cupboard) but there was no bonding visible under the kitchen sink.